Sign in to follow this  
BProland85

Cornerstone players of the future for Colts

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Because the last one was a reach?

 

Hooker was a reach?  Are you kidding?  He was a consensus top 10 pick that maybe 5% of people had falling to our range.

 

I would have taken Allen but they were neck and neck in my eyes.  Much like Nelson and Roquan this year

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bananabucket said:

 

Hooker was a reach?  Are you kidding?  He was a consensus top 10 pick that maybe 5% of people had falling to our range.

 

I would have taken Allen but they were neck and neck in my eyes.  Much like Nelson and Roquan this year

I'll just say that the text of each write up I read never supported the lofty position he was projected, IMO.  Putting the blinders on the ranking and just reading the texts, his strengths and weaknesses would never give me the impression he would be a top half 1st round pick. Seriously, its as if he was put on a pedestal for reasons other than what they wrote about him. Ohio State/Urban Meyer love maybe? Maybe they just waaaay overvalued his ability to track the ball and undervalued other skills? OTOH, both Fitz and James read like top 10 players in each write up in each publication.

 

I graded the pick a B at the time, and he's looking more like that than the A+++ so many gushed about.  A  B pick is no criticism in my book, but I can see where those in the A+++ camp can think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Cherry pick?  I said we should have picked Humphrey the moment everybody was cheering the Hooker pick.  Cherry pick is a wrong concept.

 

Criticsm? The question is simply who do you consider a cornerstone.  I said that I would not include Hooker or TY and gave the reasons.  I didn't say the guy is incompetent.  Criticism is a wrong word.  

 

You know, people around here love Hooker, so he's mentioned a lot.  He's mentioned in this "who is a cornerstone" thread.  And called out for stinking in the Venturi thread. 

 

How is it that I'm now responsible for bringing up the concept of an over rated pick out of thin air?  That's a wrong observation.

 

How is it your responsible?

 

Because you ignore what you wish to ignore (Ballard saying his priority is to create more turnovers) and you ignore what hurts you, (Ballard says a zone corner is NOT a premium position in this defense)  so we don’t have to use a first round pick on a corner.   

 

But you never ever let the facts get in the way of your position.   No matter what, you never let go....

 

Thats cherry picking...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sami Moore.  I think he will be a ball hawk and leader for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck

Nelson

Leonard

Hooker

Whatever lineman breaks out.  If there isn’t one then we will continue drafting til we find him.  

 

Im giving Hooker he benefit of the doubt he returns from injury to a better level and stays healthy. If not he isn’t off the list. 

 

Hilton will be gone in 2 years. He is an above average receiver but I believe he is replaceable in this offense. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DougDew said:

Well, I'm not a Ohio State fan, so I would have gotten blasted by many here for passing him over.

I am not a OSU fan either but you might have been blasted for passing him over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were running the War room for the Colts (or any team) I would not have drafted Hooker in the 1st round.  I think, players that only start one year in college are not worthy of a first round pick.

 

But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If I were running the War room for the Colts (or any team) I would not have drafted Hooker in the 1st round.  I think, players that only start one year in college are not worthy of a first round pick.

 

But that's me.

And me.  Maybe somewhere around pick 30 would be ok. 

 

Limited college experience.  Got nicked up.  Is fast and can track the ball, but other skills are not elite and need some work.

 

Actually, he sound like he could be the Phillip Dorsett of free safeties.  LOL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If I were running the War room for the Colts (or any team) I would not have drafted Hooker in the 1st round.  I think, players that only start one year in college are not worthy of a first round pick.

 

But that's me.

Would you draft Clay Matthews in the first round like Green Bay did? I use this as a reference because he only started his last year at USC and was a walk-on as well. So he only had 1 year of experience but yet based on potential and abilities seen by the (professional) scouts he was drafted and turned out pretty well.  I use this one example as there are more but teams draft based on what they feel they "will" get out  of a guy. College tape is good and all but definitely not the end all be all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

How is it your responsible?

 

Because you ignore what you wish to ignore (Ballard saying his priority is to create more turnovers) and you ignore what hurts you, (Ballard says a zone corner is NOT a premium position in this defense)  so we don’t have to use a first round pick on a corner.   

 

But you never ever let the facts get in the way of your position.   No matter what, you never let go....

 

Thats cherry picking...

No it isn't.  Who cares if Ballard said he wants more turnovers?  If it means at the price of taking bad angles on tackles, I think its a trade off that's too expensive.

 

I've been consistent with the draft picks I liked and didn't.  I've admitted when I would have whiffed, and when I didn't.  For the record, here is my grades immediately after the draft, so you can then tell if I'm cherry picking.

 

Hooker: B

Wilson: A

Basham: A+

Banner: D

Mack: B

Hairston: A

Walker, Jr: A+

don't remember the others

 

Nelson: B+

Leonard: A+

Smith: A

Turay: B

Lewis: C

Hines: A

Fountain: A

Wilkins: B+

Cain, Adams, and Franklin: A's

 

You see, I have no beef with Ballard's overall draft.  I think with his first round picks, he went very conservative and chose "sure thing starter" at nonimpactful positions rather than making the most of his 1st round draft slots. 

 

So whenever Nelson and Hooker come up in threads, I won't be riding the hype band wagon.  They're good players, and I hope they do well...in fact I'm sure they will be fine....but this team can't afford to waste high round picks who's positions allow them to simply be consistent players.  Hooker's turnovers will come when the ball is in the air a long time...not that much.  But tackling skill is needed on every play.  I hope his other skills improve and he earns his draft position.  As a G, Nelson can only do so much and pick #6 is pretty lofty compared to what he can do at G.  Especially when #12 and #22 were offered.

 

I loved the Wilson and Basham picks.  Other than Leonard, they were probably my two favorite picks of the Ballard era thus far.  So when they fail and I point it out, its to be honest, not to pick on CB because I agreed with him immensely on draft day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Would you draft Clay Matthews in the first round like Green Bay did? I use this as a reference because he only started his last year at USC and was a walk-on as well. So he only had 1 year of experience but yet based on potential and abilities seen by the (professional) scouts he was drafted and turned out pretty well.  I use this one example as there are more but teams draft based on what they feel they "will" get out  of a guy. College tape is good and all but definitely not the end all be all.

Probably not.  You do have to take things into consideration, like his father was a successful NFL player and the guys that were in front of him and Green Bay drafted him towards the end of the round.  But still, 1 year of starting and not even a full year at that.  And it's one criteria out of dozens to evaluate.  But I would put a higher weighted value on starting experience than other measurables.

 

His college HC did not think he was worthy of a 1st round pick either, he says he regrets it since but even though you may miss on someone like Clay Mathews once in a while, there are many more examples of players with one year experience being drafted in the first and never "reaching their potential"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Probably not.  You do have to take things into consideration, like his father was a successful NFL player and the guys that were in front of him and Green Bay drafted him towards the end of the round.  But still, 1 year of starting and not even a full year at that.  And it's one criteria out of dozens to evaluate.  But I would put a higher weighted value on starting experience than other measurables.

 

His college HC did not think he was worthy of a 1st round pick either, he says he regrets it since but even though you may miss on someone like Clay Mathews once in a while, there are many more examples of players with one year experience being drafted in the first and never "reaching their potential"

I can show multiple examples of the opposite as well though. This is an argument that will not have any outcome so I will agree to disagree. This is why GM's are fired every year. Scouts are replaced. Because no one bats 100 and some clearly miss and can't overcome a downfall they might cause. There are both sides to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

I can show multiple examples of the opposite as well though. This is an argument that will not have any outcome so I will agree to disagree. This is why GM's are fired every year. Scouts are replaced. Because no one bats 100 and some clearly miss and can't overcome a downfall they might cause. There are both sides to anything.

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm correct. :) (That is a saying on a shirt by son bought)

 

There is no reason to argue... I clearly stated, "If I were running the war room..." that is the way I'd do it.  And that is the way I'd do it and there were have to be some amazing circumstances but like I said, it's part of the evaluation, it would just carry a higher weight than other measurables.  so much so that it would be rare for a player to have only one year of starting experience in college and still get a first round grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are giving me a head ache reading all this.  There are so many factors leading to draft pick and until you wear those shoes like Ballard does, outside looking in does not give the best scenario of what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm correct. :) (That is a saying on a shirt by son bought)

 

There is no reason to argue... I clearly stated, "If I were running the war room..." that is the way I'd do it.  And that is the way I'd do it and there were have to be some amazing circumstances but like I said, it's part of the evaluation, it would just carry a higher weight than other measurables.  so much so that it would be rare for a player to have only one year of starting experience in college and still get a first round grade.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

No it isn't.  Who cares if Ballard said he wants more turnovers?  If it means at the price of taking bad angles on tackles, I think its a trade off that's too expensive.

 

I've been consistent with the draft picks I liked and didn't.  I've admitted when I would have whiffed, and when I didn't.  For the record, here is my grades immediately after the draft, so you can then tell if I'm cherry picking.

 

Hooker: B

Wilson: A

Basham: A+

Banner: D

Mack: B

Hairston: A

Walker, Jr: A+

don't remember the others

 

Nelson: B+

Leonard: A+

Smith: A

Turay: B

Lewis: C

Hines: A

Fountain: A

Wilkins: B+

Cain, Adams, and Franklin: A's

 

You see, I have no beef with Ballard's overall draft.  I think with his first round picks, he went very conservative and chose "sure thing starter" at nonimpactful positions rather than making the most of his 1st round draft slots. 

 

So whenever Nelson and Hooker come up in threads, I won't be riding the hype band wagon.  They're good players, and I hope they do well...in fact I'm sure they will be fine....but this team can't afford to waste high round picks who's positions allow them to simply be consistent players.  Hooker's turnovers will come when the ball is in the air a long time...not that much.  But tackling skill is needed on every play.  I hope his other skills improve and he earns his draft position.  As a G, Nelson can only do so much and pick #6 is pretty lofty compared to what he can do at G.  Especially when #12 and #22 were offered.

 

I loved the Wilson and Basham picks.  Other than Leonard, they were probably my two favorite picks of the Ballard era thus far.  So when they fail and I point it out, its to be honest, not to pick on CB because I agreed with him immensely on draft day.

 

 

 

Who cares if Ballard says he wants more turnovers?

 

Goodness gracious.    We are done here.

 

Enjoy the game Sunday.   Looks like you may get a fair amount of rain Early next week...    stay dry, stay safe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

When you use picks 6 and 36 in your rebuild, I don’t think it’s too early to call these guys cornerstones.

 

 

No, you hope to call them cornerstones. doesn't always turn out that way. Doesn't matter where you're drafting. Theres always a chance you're gonna draft a bust. For now though, Nelson and Leonard look like great picks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Who cares if Ballard says he wants more turnovers?

 

Goodness gracious.    We are done here.

 

Enjoy the game Sunday.   Looks like you may get a fair amount of rain Early next week...    stay dry, stay safe.

 

I was so happy when he said he wants his Elite FS's to be fundamentally sound too.  Uh...I think he said that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougDew said:

I was so happy when he said he wants his Elite FS's to be fundamentally sound too.  Uh...I think he said that.

 

 

 

You make the same mistake so many here do.    You see what a young player is and assume that’s all he’s ever going to be.    That he won’t get better this year.    Or next year, or the years after that.

 

That problem is how so many posters here didn’t notice that Castanzo got better most every year.   What RT mistakes he ever made is all they ever remembered.    Congrats,  you’re now on the masses.    Precisely what you pride yourself on NOT being.

 

Oh well...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You make the same mistake so many here do.    You see what a young player is and assume that’s all he’s ever going to be.    That he won’t get better this year.    Or next year, or the years after that.

 

That problem is how so many posters here didn’t notice that Castanzo got better most every year.   What RT mistakes he ever made is all they ever remembered.    Congrats,  you’re now on the masses.    Precisely what you pride yourself on NOT being.

 

Oh well...

 

What I do is, I respond to stupid comments with hyperbole, the same to strawman tactics.

 

I know exactly the basis by which Hooker was drafted #15.  Its because the stuff he is good at his hard to teach, and the other stuff like more consistant fundamentals can be coached.  And if the player is a hot commodity, you draft him before someone else gets him.  It happens with QBs alot, and sometimes with speedy WRs.  Edmunds was a LB who fit that description last draft.  Some teams passed for better options for them, another team grabbed him.  Just like Hooker, nobody thought Edmunds will have an elite well rounded game right away.  But he was still ranked pretty high in terms of draft slot, thinking his entire game will catch up to his good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What I do is, I respond to stupid comments with hyperbole, the same to strawman tactics.

 

I know exactly the basis by which Hooker was drafted #15.  Its because the stuff he is good at his hard to teach, and the other stuff like more consistant fundamentals can be coached.  And if the player is a hot commodity, you draft him before someone else gets him.  It happens with QBs alot, and sometimes with speedy WRs.  Edmunds was a LB who fit that description last draft.  Some teams passed for better options for them, another team grabbed him.  Just like Hooker, nobody thought Edmunds will have an elite well rounded game right away.  But he was still ranked pretty high in terms of draft slot, thinking his entire game will catch up to his good stuff.

 

Hey....   I already explained why Chris Ballard picked Hooker....    and your response (one for the ages) was almost literally “Who cares what Chris Ballard thinks!”   (You’ll be living that one down for a LONG time...)

 

At that point...   I said “check please, we’re done!”

 

And we are....     Good luck to you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

Hey....   I already explained why Chris Ballard picked Hooker....    and your response (one for the ages) was almost literally “Who cares what Chris Ballard thinks!”   (You’ll be living that one down for a LONG time...)

 

At that point...   I said “check please, we’re done!”

 

And we are....     Good luck to you...

 

What?  

 

When you're discussing the merits of a pick, what the GMs opinion of the player is isn't relevant.  That's what you're discussing!

 

Strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What?  

 

When you're discussing the merits of a pick, what the GMs opinion of the player is isn't relevant.  That's what you're discussing!

 

Strawman.

 

Nonsense.    Complete nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.